New Claims Emerge in Bears Ears National Monument as Legal Battles Intensify

The unfolding saga of Bears Ears National Monument has taken a significant turn with the recent filing of sixteen new mining claims on land recently stripped of federal protection. This development, revealed through an analysis of mapping data from the San Juan County Recorder’s office, has ignited renewed concerns among conservationists and Indigenous communities who have long fought to preserve this culturally and ecologically vital landscape. The claims, submitted on September 11th, the very day the Trump administration’s proclamation shrinking the monument took effect, signal a potential acceleration of industrial activity within an area considered sacred by numerous Native American tribes and a treasure trove of archaeological wonders.

The new claims are divided between two entities: George W. Schultz, who filed three claims in the Lockhart Basin area, a region in the northern reaches of the now-reduced monument, and Kimmerle Mining, which has staked thirteen claims in the central-eastern portion. Notably, two of Kimmerle Mining’s filings represent adjustments to the "Easy Peasy Mine," a claim initially filed after the first significant reduction of Bears Ears by the Trump administration in 2017. This particular mine, once closed and reburied following the Biden administration’s restoration of the monument’s original boundaries in 2021, now faces the prospect of revival. The resurfacing of this claim underscores the cyclical nature of the political and legal battles surrounding Bears Ears, where protections can be as ephemeral as the desert winds.

These sixteen new claims are situated on land that was part of Bears Ears National Monument until July, when President Donald Trump signed an executive order that drastically reduced the monument’s size. The cuts were sweeping, impacting not only Bears Ears but also Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, with both areas losing over 90 percent of their protected acreage. This dramatic rollback triggered an immediate and robust response from a formidable coalition of environmental, archaeological, and Indigenous non-profit organizations, bolstered by the significant support of outdoor industry titan Patagonia. This alliance swiftly filed a lawsuit, challenging the legality of the president’s actions and asserting that the Antiquities Act, the very legislation empowering presidents to designate national monuments, was overstepped.

Grant Stevens, communications director for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), a key plaintiff in the lawsuit, articulated the core of their opposition. "These are areas that were in the national monuments, and these were areas that should still be protected," Stevens stated emphatically in an interview with Backpacker. "What Trump did was illegal." This sentiment reflects a deep-seated belief that the reduction of Bears Ears was not only a violation of established precedent but also a disregard for the immense cultural and natural heritage contained within its boundaries. The Antiquities Act, enacted in 1906, grants presidents the authority to protect significant federal lands by designating them as national monuments, a power intended to safeguard irreplaceable historical sites and natural wonders for future generations. Critics of the reductions argue that the Trump administration’s actions fundamentally undermined this protective purpose.

While the exact surface area encompassed by these new claims remains somewhat uncertain, SUWA’s analysis of county data indicates that claims are often identified in 160-acre segments, though the actual size of most individual claims is likely much smaller, potentially ranging from one to twenty acres. However, Stevens cautioned that this initial acreage is not a definitive measure of potential impact. "Most are smaller, likely between one and 20 acres," he explained, "but even those small claims may get bigger as miners continue to amend them." This possibility of expansion introduces an element of unpredictability, as what begins as a seemingly minor intrusion could evolve into a more substantial footprint, impacting a larger swathe of the landscape.

The potential consequences of unchecked mining in Bears Ears are a significant concern for advocates. "The fear here and in future mining claims is going to be the scale and the impact on the land, the ecosystems, the cultural sites," Stevens elaborated. "All of those are very real." Bears Ears is renowned for its extraordinary biodiversity, including unique desert flora and fauna, and its profound archaeological significance, featuring thousands of ancient Puebloan sites, rock art panels, and burial grounds that offer invaluable insights into the region’s human history. The delicate desert ecosystem is particularly vulnerable to disturbance, and industrial activities like mining can lead to soil erosion, water contamination, habitat destruction, and the irreversible degradation of cultural resources. The specter of mining operations encroaching on these sensitive areas raises alarms about the long-term preservation of this irreplaceable heritage.

The lawsuit spearheaded by SUWA and its allies is not the sole legal challenge surrounding Bears Ears. A counter-movement, comprised of monument opponents, including Kyle Kimmerle, managing member of Kimmerle Mining, initiated their own legal proceedings in 2023. This group sued then-President Joe Biden, arguing that his administration’s decision to restore and expand Bears Ears contravened the Antiquities Act. Their central contention was that the Act mandates that monument boundaries "shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected." This legal argument centers on the interpretation of "proper care and management," suggesting that the original, larger boundaries were excessive and not strictly necessary for preservation.

While the district court initially dismissed this suit, deeming Biden’s restoration decision not subject to judicial review, an appeals panel subsequently reversed that decision. This reversal, occurring in June, has sent the suit back for further consideration, injecting another layer of legal complexity and uncertainty into the fate of Bears Ears. The fact that both sides in the debate are actively pursuing legal avenues highlights the deep divisions and high stakes involved in the management of public lands.

Before any mining operations can commence on these newly filed claims, the prospective miners will be required to obtain approval from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This process mandates that the BLM conduct a thorough environmental assessment, a crucial step designed to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed activities. Hanna Larsen, a staff attorney with SUWA, explained that while the organization and its allies have limited direct legal avenues to challenge the mining claims themselves, they intend to actively participate in the BLM’s approval process. "SUWA and other advocates have few legal avenues to contest the claims directly, but they could oppose the BLM’s approvals, and plan to ‘look into [their] options’ once they know more," Larsen informed Backpacker. This strategic approach aims to leverage the environmental review process to highlight potential risks and advocate for stringent mitigation measures, or ideally, outright denial of permits.

However, Larsen acknowledged the sobering reality that if these opposition efforts are unsuccessful, mining could indeed resume in Bears Ears in the near future. "I think seeing action on the ground like within a few months is certainly possible," she stated, conveying a sense of urgency and concern. This timeline underscores the immediate threat posed by the new claims and the need for swift and effective advocacy from conservation groups. The legal battles, the administrative reviews, and the on-the-ground activism all converge on the central question of whether the irreplaceable natural and cultural heritage of Bears Ears National Monument will be safeguarded or sacrificed to industrial interests. The outcome of these intertwined legal and administrative processes will undoubtedly have profound implications not only for Bears Ears but also for the future of public land protection across the United States. The fight for Bears Ears is a microcosm of a larger national debate about resource extraction versus conservation, and the balance of power between federal authority, state interests, and private enterprise in managing the nation’s most precious landscapes. The recent surge in mining claims serves as a stark reminder that the battle for Bears Ears is far from over, and the coming months will be critical in determining its ultimate fate.